Indejit Kaur vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -1-



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



1. CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M)

Inderjit Kaur ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

2. CRM-M-25473-2021 (O&M)

Gurjit Singh and others ...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

Sr. No. Particulars Details
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 25.08.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 07.09.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 07.09.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full
4 Full
judgment is pronounced
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and
5
reasons thereof
Not
applicable


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. A. K. Khubbar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2/complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Since both the abovementioned petitions arise out of the same
FIR involving same facts and seek identical relief, they are being taken up
together and are being decided by this common order.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -2-



2. Through these petitions, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the
petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.279 dated 25.11.2016, registered under
Sections 365, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt,
along with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., charge-sheet dated 12.07.2017
under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
3. For a better understanding of the matter, it would be appropriate
to briefly notice the relationship between the parties. Respondent No.2-Sita
Rani is the wife of petitioner No.1-Gurjit Singh in CRM-M No.25473 of
2021. Petitioner No.3-Harjinder Kaur is the mother of Gurjit Singh and,
therefore, the mother-in-law of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2-Jarnail
Singh is the husband of petitioner-Inderjeet Kaur, who is the sister of Gurjit
Singh and, therefore, sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Petitioner-Inderjeet
Kaur in CRM-M No.43896 of 2017 is, thus, the sister-in-law of respondent
No.2.
4. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
complaint moved by respondent No. 2 Sita Rani alleging therein that she was
married to petitioner Gurjeet Singh and had two children, namely Saravjeet
Singh and Prabhjot Kaur. Her husband was a permanent resident of Italy and
used to visit India once or twice in a year. She was residing at the matrimonial
home along with her children and her mother-in-law, Harjinder Kaur, who
was looking after the household. The complainant further alleged that her
husband had told her that he would take her as well as their children to Italy
and that he had obtained an affidavit in that regard. Her sister-in-law, namely
Inderjeet Kaur, who was the resident of Kampal Vihar, Bhasinpura Railway
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -3-



Crossing, Jalandhar City, had been threatening her and asking her to give the
children to them and leave her husband. It was further alleged that on
17.08.2016, she received a call from the mobile phone of her mother-in-law,
who instructed her to send the children with her. On being told by her mother-
in-law that there was a Paath at the house of Inderjeet Kaur, the complainant
got both the children and her mother-in-law ready. Thereafter, her mother-in-
law informed her that Pardeep Kumar, resident of Ambala Cantt., would also
accompany them. Consequently, on the same day, the complainant sent the
children along with her mother-in-law and Pardeep Kumar in a car. The
complainant alleged that on 18.08.2016, she telephonically contacted her
sister-in-law, Inderjeet Kaur, from her mobile phone and enquired about the
children. Inderjeet Kaur told her that she did not know anything about the
children and that the children were with her mother-in-law Harjinder Kaur.
The complainant further stated that earlier her mother-in-law had told her that
the children were in a queue for Darshan. Thereafter, the mobile phones of
her mother-in-law as well as the children were switched off. She alleged that
her Harjinder Kaur, Inderjeet Kaur, Pardeep Kumar, Jarnail Singh her
husband Gurjeet Singh, in conspiracy with each another, had abducted her
children by telling lies to her and without her consent. She also alleged that
whenever she contacted her Inderjeet Kaur telephonically, she used to
threaten to kill her. The complainant also stated that she contacted her
husband Gurjeet Singh on his mobile number in Italy but he denied having
any information regarding the children. She expressed apprehension to her
own life as well as the lives of her children and, thus, prayed for taking action
in the matter.
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -4-



5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, initially the impugned
FIR was registered under Sections 365 and 506 IPC and investigation
proceedings were initiated. During investigation, statements of persons from
the locality were recorded and documents were collected. On the basis
thereof, offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC were also added.
6. During investigation, offence under Section 365 IPC was deleted
and Pardeep Kumar was found innocent. As regards petitioner-Inderjeet Kaur,
after completion of investigation qua her, the police presented challan against
her. The learned trial Court thereafter framed charges against her under
Sections 420 and 506 IPC on 12.07.2017. The charge under Section 420 IPC
was based on the allegation that she had induced the complainant to send the
children to her house and thereafter got their custody, while the charge under
Section 506 IPC related to the allegation of criminal intimidation. So far as
the petitioners Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Jarnail Singh are concerned,
they were residing in Italy and had not been arrested. It was the stand of the
State that investigation against them would be carried out in accordance with
law and that a supplementary challan would be presented after their arrest.
Subsequently, petitioner Inderjit Kaur filed the petition numbered above and
vide order dated 20.11.2017, the learned trial Court was directed to adjourn
the case beyond the date fixed before it. The said order is continuing till date.
7. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have
been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR, even if taken at its face value,
does not disclose the commission of the offences for which the petitioners are
sought to be prosecuted. It is argued that the basic allegation was that the
children were taken to Italy. However, admittedly, Section 365 IPC, which
was the principal offence alleged in the FIR, was subsequently deleted during
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -5-



investigation. Learned counsel further argued that the allegations regarding
Section 406 and 420 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the allegation that
custody of the children was obtained or that they were taken to Italy. It was
argued that there is no allegation of entrustment of any property or dishonest
inducement to deliver any property so as to attract Section 406 or Section 420
IPC.
8. It is further argued that so far as petitioner-Inderjeet Kaur is
concerned, she was merely the sister-in-law of the complainant and had no
concern with the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and Gurjeet
Singh. It was further argued that the complainant herself had earlier given an
affidavit permitting Gurjeet Singh to take the children to Italy and, therefore,
the allegation that the children were taken away without her consent was not
correct. With regard to petitioners in CRM-M-25473-2021 , it is additionally
argued that they were not even challaned in the present case and that no
charge had been framed against them. It is argued that the State itself has
admitted that the challan was presented only against Inderjeet Kaur and the
petitioners were stated to be residing in Italy. Learned counsel also referred to
the affidavit dated 24.09.2015, according to which the complainant had no
objection to Gurjit Singh taking the children to Italy for their education.
While submitting that no prima facie case for the alleged offences is made out
against any of the petitioners and that their prosecution under the impugned
FIR would be nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law, it is urged that
the petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned FIR and consequential
proceedings are liable to be quashed qua the petitioners.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by learned
counsel for respondent No.2, has argued that the petitions are liable to be
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -6-



dismissed. It is argued that the FIR was registered after obtaining the opinion
of the Deputy District Attorney and that the investigation had revealed
material against the accused persons. During investigation, statements of the
complainant and other persons were recorded and documents were collected,
on the basis of which Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC were added. It is
further argued that the material collected during investigation showed that the
children had been taken away and sent to Italy in pursuance of a conspiracy.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 argued that the
affidavit relied upon by the petitioners did not amount to consent for taking
away the children in the manner in which they were taken. It is argued that the
affidavit and the passports had been obtained on the pretext of making
arrangements for the children's education and visa. It is further argued that
Inderjeet Kaur had called the complainant's mother-in-law and children to her
house on the pretext of a religious ceremony, from where the children were
thereafter taken to Italy. It is also submitted that there was material showing
the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged conspiracy and that the
disputed questions raised by them could not be examined in proceedings
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is urged that the petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
11. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and has gone through the material available on record.
12. At the outset, it will be profitable to look into the scope and
ambit of the Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia
with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) as spelt out in
several judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
different High Courts. The well settled proposition of law is that in exercise of
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -7-



inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not expected to
analyze all the facts, which are to be placed before the High Court. The power
conferred under this section is very specific. To secure the ends of justice, to
prevent the abuse of process of Court or to make any such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, such power can be
exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has drawn up some guidelines in some categories of cases by way of
illustration to circumscribe the exercise of inherent power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to securethe ends of the
justice or to give effect to an order of the Court. A celebrated pronouncement
on this point is the case cited as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : 1992
SUPP (1) SCC 335 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed different
categories of cases wherein the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such
powers should be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-
“102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code;
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -8-



(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused;
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
13. The principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal’ s case (supra) have been followed in a catena of judgments. In
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , it was
observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that although the inherent powers of a
High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any Court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice, yet, the High Court must not hesitate in quashing
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -9-



such criminal proceedings, where essential ingredients of the offence are not
made out. In Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 14 SCC 626 ,
it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that criminal proceedings cannot
be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment.
14. Reference can further be made to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the power
of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint or an FIR, in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction, is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz;
(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court. Reference can further be made to Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of
Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was by Hon’ble Supreme Court that
while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put him into great oppression and
prejudice and injustice would be caused to him by not quashing criminal case.
15. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra : 2019
(18) SCC 191, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the parameters as
laid down in Bhajan Lal ’s case (supra), had observed that for quashing of the
proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an
offence by the Magistrate was not called for. Appreciation of evidence was
also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out
in the complaint did not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -10-



taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent
powers.
16. Now adverting to the present case. The question which now
arises is whether, taking the allegations in the FIR and the material collected
during investigation at their face value, the ingredients of the offences for
which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted are made out. This Court is
conscious of the fact that at this stage it is not required to conduct a detailed
appreciation of evidence. However, where the basic ingredients of the alleged
offences are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any
useful purpose. In the present case, the principal allegation in the FIR was that
the children of respondent No.2 were taken away from her custody and
ultimately taken to Italy without her consent. It is on this allegation that the
FIR was initially registered under Sections 365 and 506 IPC. It is not in
dispute that during investigation Section 365 IPC was deleted. Thus, the
allegation which formed the foundation of the FIR, namely, kidnapping or
abduction with the object contemplated under Section 365 IPC, no longer
survives against the petitioners. Thereafter, Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC
were added during investigation. The Court, therefore, has to examine
whether the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose the
essential ingredients of these offences or not?
17. Section 406 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust. For an
offence under Section 406 IPC, there has to be entrustment of property or
dominion over property, followed by dishonest misappropriation or
conversion of that property, or its dishonest use or disposal in violation of law
or of any contract. In the present case, there is no allegation that any property
belonging to the complainant was entrusted to any of the petitioners and was
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -11-



thereafter dishonestly misappropriated or converted by them. The allegation is
only with regard to the custody of the children. Custody of children, however
serious the dispute may be, cannot by itself constitute entrustment of property
so as to attract Section 406 IPC. Thus, the basic ingredients of Section 406
IPC are wholly absent.
18. The position with regard to Section 420 IPC is also no different.
The offence of cheating requires deception and dishonest or fraudulent
inducement of a person to deliver any property, or to make, alter or destroy a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and capable of being
converted into a valuable security. In the present case, the allegation against
petitioner-Inderjeet Kaur is that she allegedly induced the complainant to send
the children with her mother-in-law on the pretext of a Paath at her house and
thereafter the children were taken away. The charge framed against her under
Section 420 IPC is also based on this very allegation. Even if the aforesaid
allegation is accepted as it stands, the essential requirement of Section 420
IPC that the complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver any property or
valuable security is not satisfied. What is alleged to have been obtained by
deception is the temporary custody of the children. The allegation, therefore,
may give rise to a dispute regarding custody or the manner in which the
children were taken away, but it does not disclose the ingredients of cheating
punishable under Section 420 IPC. The mere use of the words "cheated" or
"dishonestly induced" in the allegations cannot make out an offence under
Section 420 IPC when the necessary ingredients of that provision are
otherwise absent.
19. So far as Section 120-B IPC is concerned, the FIR contains a
general allegation that the petitioners and the other persons named therein, in
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -12-



conspiracy with each other, abducted the children by telling lies to the
complainant and without her consent. There is, however, no specific material
in the FIR showing any agreement between the petitioners to commit an
offence which could constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. The
allegation of conspiracy is essentially a conclusion drawn by the complainant
from the fact that the children left the house with the mother-in-law and
Pardeep Kumar and were thereafter not available to her. More importantly,
when the substantive offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC themselves are
not attracted on the allegations made in the FIR, the offence of conspiracy
cannot be permitted to survive merely on the basis of a general allegation that
the accused acted "in conspiracy". There has to be some material showing the
meeting of minds for doing an unlawful act or for doing a lawful act by
unlawful means. Such material is not apparent from the allegations in the FIR.
20. The remaining allegation is under Section 506 IPC. The FIR
states that whenever the complainant contacted her sister-in-law, Inderjeet
Kaur, she was threatened to be killed. The allegation, however, is completely
general in nature. No particular date, time, occasion or words used in the
alleged threat have been mentioned. There is also no specific allegation
showing the circumstances in which the alleged threat was given or that the
complainant was thereby intentionally alarmed or was compelled to do or
omit to do any act which she was not legally bound to do. The mere
reproduction of the expression that she was threatened to be killed, without
the necessary particulars showing the ingredients of criminal intimidation,
cannot by itself sustain the prosecution under Section 506 IPC.
21. This Court is also not required, for deciding these petitions, to
determine whether the affidavit relied upon by the petitioners was voluntarily
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -13-



executed by respondent No.2 or whether the children were taken to Italy with
her consent. Those are disputed matters and this Court does not consider it
necessary to enter into them. Even leaving that aspect completely aside and
proceeding only on the allegations contained in the FIR, the essential
ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not disclosed and the allegation
of conspiracy is also too general to sustain Section 120-B IPC. The fact that
charge under Sections 420 and 506 IPC has already been framed against
petitioner-Inderjeet Kaur also does not alter the position. Framing of charge
does not preclude this Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction where,
on a plain reading of the allegations and the material relied upon by the
prosecution, the basic ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. In
the present case, the charge under Section 420 IPC proceeds on the premise
that obtaining custody of the children amounts to the delivery of property
contemplated by that provision, which, for the reasons noticed above, cannot
be accepted.
22. As regards petitioners Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Jarnail
Singh, it is also relevant that no challan has been presented against them and
no charge has been framed against them. The State has stated that they were
residing in Italy and that further proceedings against them were to be taken in
accordance with law. However, the pendency of such investigation by itself
cannot justify continuation of criminal proceedings when the allegations, even
if accepted at their face value, do not disclose the ingredients of the offences
sought to be attributed to them.
23. The case, therefore, falls within the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) , particularly the
category where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-43896-2017 (O&M) and one connected cases -14-



accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged.
The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is meant precisely to prevent
continuation of proceedings where the criminal law is being set in motion
without the basic ingredients of the offence being present. In view of the
above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. The dispute, as disclosed from the FIR, essentially concerns
the custody and taking away of the children to Italy. Whatever may be the
rights of the parties in that regard, the allegations as made do not constitute
the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, while the offence under
Section 365 IPC already stands deleted during investigation. The allegation
under Section 506 IPC also does not contain sufficient particulars to
constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.
24. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.279
dated 25.11.2016, registered under Sections 365, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC at
Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt. and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
25. Let a photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the
connected case.

07.09.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari
JUDGE





Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.09.07 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document